Daniel Chew's former friends (Protestant Pope)

As Daniel Chew is not writing anything controversial (or useful for that matter!) at the moment, I decided to re-read one of Antithesis's blog post, entitled "A Very Short Reply to Daniel Chew Huicong".

An anonymous comment (1st comment) wrote in that post that Daniel Chew had a number of former friends. A follow up comment pointed out the number of one-time friends of Daniel Chew who have since disappeared - after having some "debates" with the Watchman, Author, Apologist of the Christian world (AT - Daniel's original post with his infamous name is now removed).

I decided to scan the blogsphere to look out for Daniel's former friends. My case-study is this blog - THE LIFE OF WORSHIP, by Wenxian - a Singaporean who no longer blogs. Let us follow - chronologically, their friendship and then falling out... it is a pattern between Daniel and his 'former-friends'. I have included some quotes in italics.

1) This is Wenxian's first post when he endorsed Daniel Chew's Blog - April 2006
"This is my friend's blog entry. I support what he has said in his blog entry. Daniel knows what he is saying and i have did my checking as well."

2) In June 2006, Wenxian and Daniel Chew were still FRIENDS!
"I thank the LORD... He has sent 3 people, filled by the Holy Spirit, to affirm me in my battle and help me affirm up my faith, to encourage me on this hard road of life i choose to walk in the LORD. I am thankful for brothers cyberranger and hedonese and daniel. Thank you LORD!"

3) From this post in Nov 2006, Wenxian had (or still is?) attended the same church as Daniel Chew. I wonder if he left it once he realise what kind of a character Daniel Chew is!
"Went to visit Daniel's church, CERC today. I must say that i am pleased with whats going on."

4) Here Wenxian states - in Aug 2007, what everyone suspects all along - that Daniel is a hypercalvinist! I sense the trouble has already before this post...
"Daniel a type-3 hypercalvinist?
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
I'm simply calling a spade a spade here. Failure to understand God's perceptive will and decreptive will? Thats really sad. What makes it really sad is that he (likely) became a type-3 hypercalvinist because he wants to oppose everything Rick Warren said in his 40day PDL book, which begins with: [God desires your salvation... God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life]... Either that or he can't bear to see himself wrong in in his angelfire website.. other reasons exist of course."

5) I am not sure about this post - dated Nov 2007, but it was obvious Daniel Chew had said something to offend Wenxian. But I was not going to pursue that line...
"I recently visited Daniel's blog and honestly, i quite regretted visiting it. yet i was also quite happy too. Its strange but being correct is a much more overwhelming feeling that being insulted/character-assasinated online. I simply proved the assessment i had of daniel all along. Of course i will not say it here, but its not good. I'm quite appalled a reformed christian actually behaves in this manner to a well-worded comment. It was neutral in stance in everyway. I couldn't believe it when i wrote the comment without a single fiery word."


6) Also this by Wenxian - dated Nov 2007. Here is clear that Wenxian has left the church that Daniel Chew attends, due to theological differences. Was it really due to theological differences or did Daniel's behaviour put him off?
"Anyway, as a personnal aside to daniel, if you won't listen to Brother Jenson, who has attended more church than you, served more than you and is much more mature than you - even IF [lets assume i am not] i am attending a church at the moment, you will not repent from your foolishness. So because you deny Brother Jenson's arguements (which i totally suscribe to), you deny yourself the same right of arguement against me when you use [the assumption that that i do not attend church, i.e. your ''i have done more than you so u don't have authority arguement''] against me.

Another thing. I am very grateful i didn't attend your church. I don't want to imagine myself trying to pull out from your church purely because of baptismal theological differences. This was my benefit of not attending church at that time. Imagined if i had committed to churches of your sort without analysis? I'll be doing it the same things as my previous church again! I was blind but now i see. I have no wish nor rush to jump back into blindness."

7) Finally check this out by Wenxian. Amazingly, in May 2008, Wenxian was sounding the call to watch the watchman! I have included Wenxian's entire post.

"I've been reflecting about 'watchmen' in certain protestant, reformed churches today. I was wondering what is it about 'watchmen' such as Daniel that made him call out Jenson as someone who disparages Scripture, even when:

1) Jenson affirms the full and sole authority of Scripture. (sola scriptura)
2) Jenson was clearly taken out of context and slandered.

Is it the correct way for Daniel to call out to Jenson and ask him to repent of something he did not do? Based on the sole proof that Daniel provided against Jenson in his blog, if taken into full context, Jenson was by no means disparaging scripture, even IF the clip (which Jenson remained silent) was sort of dispararing Scripture.

Is it therefore appropriate to assume the context of a person's heart and call the person to repent when in actual fact, the only thing Jenson did was that he did not follow Daniel's insistence to attack Edmund? [Daniel, why pray tell, must Jenson attack Edmund in the context of that post?]. Even if Edmund became rotten to the core later, it is not to be used as evidence against the 'fundamentalism is idolatry' post. Must a person attack another verbally in order to demonstrate allegance to the Lord?

Or has Daniel forgotten who Jesus chose: Mary or Martha? It is sufficient when people draw close to to the Lord.

Daniel has to learn to be humble and understand his position. While i do affirm the correctness of his analysis with Rick warren and the purpose driven movement, as well as against homosexuality, Daniel is not empowered by heaven or by powers on earth, to demand that 2 individuals speaking amongst themselves to fall out. Daniel is neither an elder nor a pastor (now). Even if Daniel is an elder or a pastor or a pope, it give him no right to bring two friends assunder (even if they associate on other terms and differ in theological opinions). That would clasify as 'Lording over the flock'.

I hope Daniel understands clearly that the reason why i dissociated from him, in retrospect, was not due to theology per se. Rather, it was his obnoxious behaviour and his willingness to interfere in events that have no need of his interference. In short, if Daniel had not interfered with my initial conversation with vincent and made his own comments, we would have parted amicably. Then again, i thank God i did not part with him well - i should stay clear of anything that pollutes me...

Additionally i hate people who have scant respect for other people's time. Such is a fruit of a person who thinks he is superior than other people and does not give people the benefit of the doubt nor respect.

I do not wish to be influenced by people who cannot inwardly manifest Christ in their lives. I have no wish to be a hypocrite. A person who cannot fix his inner man (ok thelogically its by god) but insists on not trusting God and trying to fix other men himself is in for a lot of trouble.

Another serious error is that he believes people can be neatly classified into various categories of heretics/etc. Erm no. Some may but mostly others will accept some things and reject others. To classify a person as a _________ and therefore use known arguements against this class of theology is plain foolishness! This means that Daniel has likely no wish to listen or discern if the person is (1) gently deluded (2) really believing in it (3) plain confused (4) not part of the theology at all! He once clasified me as a dispensationalist - yet John piper is a reformed theology baptist. Sighz.

If we go by the fruits of the spirit, Daniel sadly misses out on goodness, kindness, patience and self control. Well.. if God can make a Babylonian king eat grass, he can make fools out of people. Lets just leave everything to God for this guy. Honestly i had given up on him a long time ago.

Wouldn't it be better to just sit at the feet of Jesus and to draw close to Him? Isn't it enough?"

From the Protestant Pope: Daniel Chew's Transition

Note: Since the Protestant Pope has recanted of his blog, I will re-post some of his best works in systematic theology.

So I was informed by an anonymous reader and from comments over at Antithesis' blog that Daniel Chew is going to USA to pursue a seminary degree. He has since written a post entitled "A Transition"

I have quote in full (replacing a portion of Scripture that he quoted with a link) and made comments in italics:


Observant readers of mine may have noticed that I have seen that my city of residence have been changed, although that would not actually take effect until about one week's time. The fact of the matter is that I am going for theological studies in a solid Reformed seminary over there.

Anyway, here is a short sharing which I have prepared for a dinner with some of my extended family last night. It has undergone major revisions since the script was not fully thought-out at that time. Anyway, here it is.

I do not know if his extended family include a number of saved people, but the subsequent "sharing" would make little sense to the unsaved. There was no clear Gospel message, although the opportunity was there. A little advice to the new seminary student/would-be pastor: when the opportunity arise to proclaim the good news, take it.

Is. 48:2-11

In just a couple of days time, I would be flying off to the USA for theological studies. Why have I decided to do that?

Being saved by the grace of God, I desire to know Him more and to live for Him, giving my all (Rom. 12:1) to the one who saved me purely out of His own free choice to do so. As I grow in my walk, I became burdened with the shocking biblical illiteracy even among Christians who are ignorant of basic biblical doctrines, which coupled with an attitude of anti-intellectualism results in failure to function as the salt and light of the world. Instead, we have epitomized the reality of Eph. 4:14 – being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and in this we glory in our shame, boasting to everyone of our ignorance by claiming to have “no creed but Christ”.

Those are not valid reasons to constitute a "call to the ministry". Does Daniel Chew expect to study for a MDiv/MTh and return to Singapore and deal with all the "Shocking biblical illiteracy" among Christians in Singapore?

Does one need to have a MDiv/MTh in order to function as salt and light of the world? Or to stop others from being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine?

Daniel, have you discern within yourself if you have the "internal" call to the ministry?

In the past three years, I have felt the calling to serve God full-time. Yet the call of God is not something that is emotion but that is of the Spirit. Through prayer and awaiting God’s timing, I am convinced of God’s guidance into this area and my giftings in this area have also been noted by fellow Christians. It is therefore my desire to learn more about God’s Word so as to be able to teach it properly for the building up of God’s people.

Yes, Daniel, but how do you know? Growing in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ is for every Christian, some grow faster than others. That does not constitute a "calling to serve God full-time".

How is Daniel convinced of God's guidance? Is his church recognising his gifts and calling? Has his pastor discern this as well? Have they given their hearty approval thereby providing Daniel with his "external" call? My guess is NO! That is probably a reason why he gave no indication of that.

His claim of "giftings" being "noted by fellow Christians" is questionable. Is that the church? His pastor? Or the 4-5 well-meaning friends who encouraged him along in his ambitions? Do his well-meaning friends themselves understand the Christian Ministry?

Yet in all this I must take note of the fact that service is ultimately not about me. God is totally sovereign and He does not need anyone to do His will. God does not need me or anyone else for that matter to do His work, for His arm is powerful to do all that He desires (Dan. 4:35). God can make a great nation from Moses without the need for the Israelites if He so chooses to (Ex. 32:10), and He can raise up children of Abraham from inanimate rocks and stones (Mt. 3:9, Lk. 3:8). No matter the need, God is always in control and lacks nothing from us.

We must not therefore think that God needs our services otherwise His plan will fail. Rather, God condescends to use us for His own glory, and it is our privilege to joyfully submit to Him and do His will for us.

God’s will is ultimately for His glory – for His name’s sake (Is. 48:2-11). God’s glory is of supreme importance to Himself, and it is because of His glory that He saves us, just like He promises to saves the rebellious Jews during the time of Isaiah. I must therefore also remember that the goal of all service is that God be supremely glorified, not about how much service I have rendered to God or how many people may benefit from what God may do through me. The prophet Jeremiah has little to show for His labor, yet He glorified God by proclaiming His Word as judgment against Judah for their rejection of God’s authority and His Law. Likewise, all that we do must be centered on God and His glory, not the needs of men, the Church or the World. What matters is faithfulness, not results.

So (1) God does not need me, and (2) God does not treasure what I can do (as if apart from the Lord I can do anything anyway). Yet it is my privilege to follow and offer my life up to this great God and my Savior, knowing that He will use this flawed life for His purpose, and that His purposes will stand. Amen.

The remainder of his post is rather abstract. No connection with the crux of the matter. Several questions just came off the top of my head:

1. On what grounds is he studying at WSCal? Because he is an "informed Christian layman"? Or is it the fact that he is an "Apologist, Author, Watchman" (his infamous name-card post is now off his blog, but I think the name-card is still in existence)?
2. On what grounds did WSCal accept his application?
3. Did his pastor provide a reference, and if so, on what basis? Daniel's (real or imaginary) calling to the ministry? Or did his pastor just wrote a reference to say that Daniel is capable of studying theology?
4. What about character reference? Who provided that? Is Daniel's character one that exemplifies 1 Tim 3, Titus 1?
5. Has Daniel proven to himself (not just to others) that he has the gifts AND graces to enter (and stay in) the ministry?
   
6. Has he (on an informal basis) taught the members of his church the doctrines of Scripture?
7. Has the church given their hearty approval to those gifts and graces?
8. Has God's Providence opened doors to him to preach/teach?

I am afraid Daniel Chew is heading in the direction of where many men who imagined a call to the ministry has gone:
1) seminary studies (Which isn't cheap!);
2) wait for years for a church to call him as pastor;
3) if no calling, study to become a RE teacher in a school

OR

3) if a calling a available...
a) pastor for few years, dry up (i.e. no more materials)... move onto next pastorate
b) pastor for few years, split church several times
c) pastor for few years, introduce modern gimmicks
d) people fed-up with poor spiritual preaching...leave
e) etc...

Daniel needs to realise that a MDiv/MTh is no guarantee that he will be a pastor, let alone a GOOD & FAITHFUL pastor. There is a lot more in the Christian Ministry than just trying to obtain a seminary degree.

ON SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS: Dedicated To Pseudo-Rev Daniel H. Chew

ON SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS

by Edwin F. Kagin
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 48
Union, KY 41091

self-righteous: confident of one’s own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others. - Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary

Pretty soon I wanted to smoke, and asked the widow to let me. But she wouldn’t. She said it was a mean practice and wasn’t clean, and I must try not to do it anymore....And she took snuff too; of course that was all right, because she done it herself. - Huckleberry Finn

The self-righteous are everywhere, trying to control our lives. With the zeal of reformed nymphomaniacs peddling AmWay, they freely vend their negative judgements on the behavior and opinions of others. Unable or unwilling to control themselves and their unhappy lives of frustration, insecurity, and despair, these petty dictators seek solace in desperately attempting to control others. For they are right. Those who disagree with their toxic tyranny are clearly and obviously wrong, if not evil. And they do attract followers, persons easily led, seeking certainty, and willing to praise, to flatter, and to sing unto them, How great thou art. Self-righteous leaders reward fidelity and elevate select obedient disciples, especially worshipful ones who are confused but shamelessly self-righteous, to CULT (Counseled Until Learned Truth) status.

The existence of such personalities is not new. Jesus is reported to have said, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" There are similar references, for self-righteousness is justly and frequently condemned in the bible ... Indeed, we recommend you read [the Bible]. The book is much better than the movie.

Self-righteousness and hypocrisy may be joined, as in the widow’s views on tobacco reported by Huck. But they are quite different concepts. Hypocrites, like the widow, do themselves that which they so freely condemn in others. Most hypocrites are self-righteous, but self-righteous persons are not necessarily hypocrites and may in fact practice what they preach. A priest who rapes little boys, and preaches against homosexuality and violence, is clearly both, while a practicing virgin, who moralistically urges this unhappy fate on others, is not. It’s all in how you study it. Many have rejected religion largely because it is home to lots of goodie-two-shoes type persons of self-righteous or hypocritical persuasion. Sometimes, in their attempt to live justly in an unjust world, the disillusioned seek solace from religion in the perceived rationality of secular humanism. And guess what?

This may come as a shock to some secular humanist readers, but the self-righteous are also to be found among the ranks of the supposedly rational, among those who look for meaning apart from the supernatural, among those who decry the artificial goodness of the godly. Bummer, ain’t it? Thus, instead of holier-than-thou, we have those who feel rationaler-than-thou, or skepticaler-than-thou, and who demean, abjure, reject, and avoid those they feel don’t quite measure up to their standards. Such are no less self-righteous than the widow.

Whether religious or secular, the self-righteous and the con-artist are sisters under the skin. Both become outraged if they don’t get their way. The slightest reasoned refusal to consent to manipulation or control is punished. The uncooperative mark may witness a presumably well meaning, but terminally self-righteous, friend go into an inexplicable rage, answering disobedience with irrational and unpleasant emotions, until the victim seems, as best worded by Shakespeare, "beyond reason hated." To further complicate matters, the person deluded by self-righteousness cannot understand when others are disinclined to share their hostility and fail to concede the justness of their attitudes and actions. The world as one conspires.

The self-righteous are troubled by democracy. Why debate or vote on any matter of behavior or morality when truth is available by decree, and when correct answers may be so readily had from those who know the answers beyond any need for question or discussion? To challenge such persons is, in their view, malum in se--in the vernacular, reprehensible, wicked, and wrong in itself--denoting a defect of character revealed in the very act of rebellion against ultimate authority. Thereafter, every action or motive of the errant sinner will be understood and punished as an indisputably vile thing--another example of evil attacking good. The psychological mechanism of projection, and the transparent narcissism of the self-righteous, is beyond the scope of this digression. The analogies to theology are scary. If afflicted leaders possess small power, they are merely annoying, comical, or pathetic. If they hold real power over nations or ideologies, the graveyards of history harbour their heritage.

The sad part is that they don’t have to be like this. The self-righteous prigs can get over it, or get therapy for it. They don’t have to expose themselves to the misery. Misery is optional, for predator as well as prey, even if one thinks they have no free will. Rational beings don’t have to live with sustained rage, or with the chronic paranoia of waiting for some other imaginary shoe to drop. Those who live to control others could, using the power of reason they mock, come to realize that compromise and resolution of disagreements can be something more than capitulation or appeasement, and that, in some things at least, they just might be--as impossible as it seems--wrong. One is entitled to be smug, arrogant, and self-righteous only if one has figured out how not to die. The outcast may well be the better person. That’s what the bible story of the good Samaritan is all about.

If we can’t avoid the self satisfied--the better option--we can laugh at them. A healthy person loves to see the pompous taken down a peg or two, and delights in mocking their phony goodness and proper ways. This is why the common folk laugh when a stuffed shirt slips on a banana skin. But what about self-righteous secular humanists who, in hardening their hearts and softening their minds, do real harm to those who actually favor free inquiry? Maybe we should create a Secular Humanist Hall of Shame. Here could be enrolled and acknowledged those whose actions have earned them the herein proposed SHAME (Secular Humanist Arrogantly Making Enemies) Award.

As adolescent fantasies are best left to adolescents, so childish needs to have one’s own way are best left to children, who will hopefully outgrow them. Adults should, to borrow again from the bible, "put away childish things." It would be sad to die without growing up.

For everything there is a season,
For every act there is a reason;
As a garden reflects its seeds,
Deeds of life tell that life’s needs.

Prophecies for Watchman: Quotes From C S Lewis' Mere Christianity

“If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastely as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”

“According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride… it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”

“As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”

“For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.”

“If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed.”

Daniel H. Chew’s Confusion Concerning Baptism: Burn Baby Burn Part II

I have previously noted Daniel H. Chew's rabid hatred for infants and retarded individuals who are unable to give conscious assent to the Gospel of Christ. As analyzed in the previous post, Chew has to logically concede that all infants who die in infancy (prior to their ability to give conscious assent to, or to believe in, the Gospel) are reprobates and destined for hell fire.

In his recent post, Chew reiterates his belief concerning infants and other humans who are unable to have conscious belief:

“Heb. 9:27 is the final nail in the coffin for the heresy of Inclusivism. Judgment comes immediately (not temporarily but experientially[sic]) after death, and thus there are no second chances for anyone to have a "postmortem conversion". Those who do not have conscious faith in Christ in this life do not have eternal life, and do not have any second chance to "gain" eternal life after their earthly life have passed.” - Daniel H. Chew

Infants cannot have “conscious faith in Christ,” and if they were to die in infancy, they “do not have any second chance to "gain" eternal life after their earthly life have passed,” so said Chew.

At baptism, the local church would not be able to know whether the said infant is going to survive beyond infancy. If the said infant of believing parents were to die prior to its ability to have conscious belief, then the infant is apparently doomed for judgment as a reprobate i.e. the infant is a reprobate. Therefore, it is baffling that the self-confessed pedobaptist Chew would argue that Scripture warrants/mandates the baptism of reprobates, given that Infant Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.

Even Chew's own professor at Westminster would agree that:

“Baptism is a means of sanctifying grace and a gospel ministry to the people of God. It is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace illustrating what Christ has done for his people and sealing salvation to the same. Therefore covenant children of believing parents as well as unbaptized adult converts should be baptized. (Reformed).” - R. Scott Clark

Within the context of Chew's statements above, I couldn't imagine a greater tragic irony than that of infant baptism, where the said infant would die prior to acquiring an ability to give conscious assent to the Gospel. According to Chew’s previous statements, and by applying the simple laws of logic, such an infant is reprobate and predestined for hell i.e. “those who do not have conscious faith in Christ in this life do not have eternal life, and do not have any second chance to "gain" eternal life after their earthly life have passed (Chew).” Nevertheless, such a predestined reprobate must, according to Chew’s theology, receive the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.

Isn't it true that Chew's theology is suggesting that God is an omnipotent hypocrite? God says, “Hey parents, the promise is to you and your children. Oh yes, your infant ought to receive the sign and seal of My covenant of grace. Yep, he is special! Oh yeah, no kidding! On second thought, this one is actually My predestined reprobate, for I have predestined him to burn in hell for all eternity. But hey, what’s the big deal? Give him the sign and the seal of my gracious covenant. It’s just for show, you know? But do you see how gracious I am? I want him to burn in hell for all eternity, but I mandate that you give him My sign and seal of the gracious covenant.”

If Chew would attempt to draw a false analogy between baptized infants who die in infancy (and/or children who die prior to giving conscious assent to the Gospel) and baptized adult believers who later turned out to be false believers or apostates, then Chew is sadly mistaken. In the case of infants, they are baptized prior to them developing a perceived ability to give any conscious assent to the Gospel (or any propositions besides those involving basic primal needs [1] for that matter), whereas in the case of adult believers, these are able to profess conscious belief to the local church. If we cannot accept such conscious belief and subsequent professions of faith from adult believers when considering their baptism, what should we then consider as a testimony to their mental acceptance of Gospel truths? Should we then replace adult baptism with a “Reformed, Protestant” version of extreme unction? From this side of eternity, even adult “believers” who apparently bear spiritual fruits, and are subsequently baptized, might eventually turn out to be reprobates.

Again, Chew might rebut, “God commands all children of believers to be baptized. So it is not a matter of logical analysis, but obedience to God's commandments and mandate.” Firstly, it shall always be a matter of logical analysis, for Clarkian Chew cannot have it both ways: the peddling of Clarkian logic and the simultaneous denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Most of our readers would agree that Reformed Theologians are still debating the issue of infant baptism, and perhaps none has ever claimed to conclusively prove the doctrine from Scripture. Now given that Chew can prove from Scripture that God has indeed commanded baptism for “you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call (Acts 2:39),” how would Chew argue that “children” refers only to infants, and not to older children who can indeed give conscious assent to gospel truths?

How would Chew draw the line of definition between an “infant” and a “non-infant”? How would Chew show from Scripture that a particular “age” defines an infant as opposed to that of a non-infant?
How would he then demonstrate that the household baptisms in the New Testament were those involving these infants i.e. children before they arrive at the non-infant age?

Lastly, why are only infants baptized in pedobaptism? Isn't it true that all children of believers are within the Covenant of Grace, and not just infants (whatever “infant” means)? Since Chew concede that children are in the covenant, why aren’t paedobaptists baptizing all children of believing parents irrespective of age? Again, how should Chew draw the line between an infant, child, the non-infant and the non-child?

[1] Arguably, infants are able to communicate to their carers needs in the lowest of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy, e.g. physiological needs, and perhaps even safety and love needs.

Daniel H. Chew and his Superego

"There are different kinds of voices calling you to all different kinds of work, and the problem is to find out which is the voice of God rather than society, say, or the super-ego, or self-interest." - Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC

In the beginning, Daniel H. Chew (also known as Daniel Chew Huicong) self-appointed himself as apologist, author, watchman.

He was without fame and void, and darkness was upon his reputation. So, Daniel H. Chew self-published himself a book.

And Daniel H. Chew said: let there be a string of degrees behind my name, and so Chew gave himself the external call to the Christian ministry – apart from any involvement within a local church in Singapore. It was a "ministry" to study in seminary, and that's it.

Even a little of positive affirmation from his pastor (if any) would be good. But alas, does he even have a local church? Is he even an active member of any church in Singapore?

In the future, we keenly anticipate his self-ordination.

Do peruse this excellent post by the Protestant Pope.

Let us also peruse some interesting comments by my readers (Note: I do not stand by these comments):

Anonymous said:

I just found out that Watchman Chew is now a student of Westminster Ca under a prestigious scholarship called "My Daddy's Scholarship." As he has never served in any major capacity in any local church before, he is not supported by any church for his seminary studies. ...

As a self-serving student who aspires to quarrel and debate in blogosphere with a seminary degree, he would probably self-ordain himself as a reverend of a handful of rank-and-file blogo-fans. Would his pastor (if any) clarify these rumors?

Another Anonymous wrote:

Studying seminary in America is not cheap; in fact, it's like doing a professional degree overseas! Taken together with the moneys required to survive/live in USA, it's easily 100K USD or more. ...

May I know which board of elders had elected/appointed godly Chew to do seminary and to be ordained upon his return - given the fact that he hasn't served the local church in any capacity?

I'm sure Pastor Paul Goh wouldn't send Chew to Westminster given that the PRCA seminary is still functioning. Oh wait, Chew is no longer in CERC.

'A Friend' wrote:

To be fair to Daniel, he is greatly to be admired for not having any family commitments in any way. Both his parents are doing well and self-supporting, while Daniel himself has no emotional ties in Singapore.

By all means, he is his father's son, and his father can choose to "invest" in his theological education. At his age, most would be supporting a wife and kids, but in his case, perhaps it's more secure to continue living under his dad's roof.

It isn't easy these days for theological students to survive when supported by a local church; so isn't it great that he is supported by his dad and not by any local church?

I would have wanted my dad's support too!

Barry wrote:

He [Daniel H. Chew] is THE Chee Soon Juan of Reformed Scholarship! I like him!

John wrote:

Although Daniel does not have a church to go to, he serves God with his heart and mind like true prophets within apostate Israel. Churches in Singapore are so degenerate that even pastors are not saved. I see Daniel tells the truth bravely, and churches need to listen to him. How can such pastors lord over Daniel by telling him when he is prepared to go to seminary?

'Would be Pope' wrote:

Daniel needs to test HIMSELF (confirming his 'internal' call) and also prove to his CHURCH (confirming his 'external' call), BEFORE he should even embark on seminary studies.

Writing blogs about the apostate so-and-so, drumming up support from his friends, going to other churches to rub shoulders with the renowned Reformed men DO NOT constitute a call to the ministry.

A Watchman or A Fool?

The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. - Ecclesiastes 10:12

Dedicated to those who devote their time to endless disputes and debates in Blogosphere; please make yourselves useful for God's glory.

A word of advice from Matthew Henry to the Fool:

"Fools talk a great deal to no purpose, and they show their folly as much by the multitude, impertinence, and mischievousness of their words, as by any thing; whereas the words of a wise man's mouth are gracious, are grace, manifest grace in his heart and minister grace to the hearers, are good, and such as become him, and do good to all about him, the lips of a fool not only expose him to reproach and make him ridiculous, but will swallow up himself and bring him to ruin, by provoking the government to take cognizance of his seditious talk and call him to an account for it. ...

A fool also is full of words, a passionate fool especially, that runs on endlessly and never knows when to leave off. He will have the last word, though it be but the same with that which was the first. What is wanting in the weight and strength of his words he endeavours in vain to make up in the number of them; and they must be repeated, because otherwise there is nothing in them to make them regarded. Note, Many who are empty of sense are full of words; and the least solid are the most noisy [in blogosphere]. ...

[A fool] is full of words, for if he do but speak the most trite and common thing, a man cannot tell what shall be, because he loves to hear himself talk [or blog/write], he will say it again, what shall be after him who can tell him?"